6.  The applicant was born in 1951 and is currently detained in Nicosia Central Prison. He is serving concurrent eighteen-year sentences pursuant to his conviction for two counts of attempted murder.
7.  On 5 September 2003 the applicant was permitted to leave detention on twenty-four hour leave granted by the prison director. He did not return to the prison when his leave expired. Following a search to trace his whereabouts, he was arrested on 21 September 2003. At the time of his arrest he was in possession of a gun and cartridges and was wearing a bullet-proof vest and a woman’s wig. He was transferred to the maximum security wing of the prison and placed in solitary confinement. He was thus confined until 7 November 2003, that is, for a total of 47 days.
8.  The parties’ submissions concerning the conditions of the applicant’s detention during the period of his solitary confinement differed.
9.  The Government agreed that the applicant had been detained in the prison’s maximum security wing but maintained that he was detained in a normal cell. The dimensions of the cell were 2.8 metres by 2.1 metres, that is, 5.88 square metres. It was furnished with a bed, a cupboard and a table. The cell had two windows: an exterior one (0.8m by 0.6m) and a smaller one above the cell door (0.4m by 0.4m). The cell was opened about three times a day for a total of about an hour. This time was used for personal hygiene purposes and taking meals. It was the applicant’s responsibility to clean his cell and he was provided with all the necessary equipment. He had regular direct contact with prison personnel. Moreover, newspapers had been provided in the wing and he had access to books from the prison library. There was a television set in the wing corridor to which the applicant could listen and he would have been provided with a radio if he had requested one.
10.  During the applicant’s confinement he had spent considerable time outside prison when attending court hearings on 2, 10, 13, 16, 22 and 29 October and 4 and 6 November 2003. He was seen on four occasions by the prison doctor (7, 18, 20 and 31 October 2003). He was also visited by a welfare officer on 14 October 2003 and was seen by the prison psychologist on 3 and 30 October 2003.
11.  Although the applicant was allowed to send letters to his family and friends twice a week, he did not attempt to send any such letters. He did not ask to make or receive telephone calls. Visits from family members while the applicant was in solitary confinement were not permitted but during the applicant’s visits to the court, he could meet with his family and friends, and was in fact supplied with food, soft drinks and clothes by his family which he was allowed to take back to prison. On one occasion, a mobile telephone given to the applicant by a family member was confiscated upon his return to prison after a hearing.
12.  The applicant disputed the Government’s description of the conditions of his confinement. He alleged that following his return to prison on 21 September 2003 he was confined in a cold, damp cell of a maximum of five square meters without food, water or suitable clothing. The cell had no external window and the window of the cell door was considerably smaller than the Government had indicated. The applicant was excessively restricted in his ability to use the toilet or have a shower: for the first four days of his solitary confinement he was forced to use an empty water bottle to urinate and nylon bags for other needs. These were provided to him by a prison officer through the small window in the cell door. Due to the cold, his arm and shoulder had frozen and he suffered from pain but the doctor was not allowed by the prison authorities to provide him with painkillers. He was nevertheless given an anti-inflammatory gel by the doctor using her own funds. Relying on the prison logbook submitted to the Court by the Government, the applicant stated that he had not been allowed to go to the toilet prior to 24 September 2003 or to have food or the opportunity to shower before 25 September 2003, although he was given bottled water and an apple from time to time through his small cell window by a prison officer. He had no access to newspapers, books or television. Further, he was not regularly seen by a doctor and he was not allowed regularly to exit his cell for half an hour in the morning and half an hour in the afternoon, as required by the relevant regulations.
13.   While in solitary confinement, the applicant was not permitted to have visits from his family or to make telephone calls. As for the Government’s allegations that he had not asked to make telephone calls, the applicant replied it was not the practice of the prison authorities to give formal decisions refusing requests to make telephone calls in writing, there were no telephone booths in the maximum security block and, in general, prisoners were not allowed to receive calls from outside the prison. He had no contact with his family in the prison during the period of his solitary confinement and no contact was possible during his court visits. In particular, when he attended hearings at the district court in Limassol, he was kept at the Limassol central police station’s cells. It was only after the period of his solitary confinement that he could see his family and friends at the court’s hearings.
14.  The applicant also alleged that the maximum security wing was used to threaten or punish prisoners given the conditions of detention there and, in particular, the fact that another prisoner would beat up prisoners without any attempt by the authorities to protect them. The applicant alleged that he had been ill-treated in this manner on two occasions but did not provide further details.
15.  According to the entries in the prison logbook which was submitted to the Court by the Government, the applicant was returned to prison on 21 September 2003. On 24 September 2003, the logbook records that the applicant left his cell to use the toilet after special notification had been given to the security direction (“φρουραρχείο”). The following day, the entry in the logbook records that he met with the prison director and was given food.
16.  Although the logbook records that on some days the applicant used the toilet on several occasions, on others it indicates that he only used the toilet once.  On 4 October 2003, there is no record of the applicant leaving his cell to use the toilet. Access to shower facilities appears to have been sporadic: at times he showered every couple of days but on other occasions, according to the logbook, he did not leave his cell to shower for two weeks. Similarly, the prison logbook records that on some days the applicant was given two or three meals whereas on others, it would appear that he received only one. On 4 October 2003, there is no entry recording any meal given to the applicant.
17.  The logbook indicates that the applicant saw a prison psychologist four times: on 23 and 26 September and on 3 and 31 October 2003. He saw the prison doctor on 7 and 20 October 2003. He met with the welfare officer on 14 October 2003. On 31 October 2003, he refused to attend a scheduled visit to see a surgeon at the General Hospital
18.  The logbook records that the applicant attended court on seven occasions: on 10 October 2003 for about six hours; on 13 October 2003 for about five hours; On 16 October 2003 for about six hours; on 22 October 2003 for about eight hours; on 27 October 2003, for about one and a half hours; on 29 October 2003 for about seven and a half hours; and on 4 November 2003, for about two hours.
19.  According to the logbook, on 1 November 2003, the applicant met a member of the Prisons Board. On 5 November 2003, he was taken to meet with the Prisons Board and was away from his cell for 20 minutes.
20.  There are two entries in the logbook recording other relevant events. On 17 October 2003, he was taken to a conference room, where he remained for one hour and twenty minutes. On 4 November 2003, he was accompanied by a prison officer to visit a Mr A.T. and was away for about half an hour.
21.  Although the applicant was in solitary confinement until 7 November 2003, only entries from the logbook up to 5 November 2003 have been submitted by the Government.
22.  On the date of the applicant’s arrest following his failure to return to prison, a police investigation began into alleged offences committed while the applicant was at liberty. According to the Government, this was concluded on 11 November 2003 with the filing of charges against the applicant for the commission of various offences. The applicant maintained that he was charged on 10 October 2003.
23.  In parallel, on 5 November 2003, the applicant was charged with several disciplinary offences concerning the breach of the terms of his leave. However, the disciplinary proceedings were not pursued.
24.  On 19 July 2005 the Limassol Assize Court convicted the applicant of escaping from custody and of other offences associated with his escape. The prison director stated in his evidence before the court that the applicant was placed in solitary confinement in order to protect him from other prisoners who were hostile towards him because of restrictions imposed in the prison affecting everyone as a result of the applicant’s escape. The court noted in its judgment that the applicant had entered a plea of not guilty in respect of the disciplinary offences but that the proceedings were not pursued, no witnesses were heard and no sentence was imposed. Given that there had been no trial, no verdict and no imposition of a sentence in the disciplinary proceedings, the court concluded that the applicant’s confinement could not be treated as a disciplinary sentence.
25.  The applicant lodged an appeal against his conviction before the Supreme Court.
26.  On 11 December 2007 the Supreme Court allowed the applicant’s appeal against his conviction of the offence of escaping from custody given that, at the relevant time, he had been on temporary release and had merely failed to return to prison at the expiry of his release period.
27.  The applicant, in a letter to the office of the Commissioner of Administration (“the Ombudsman”) dated 6 October 2003, complained about his detention for an excessive period of time in the maximum security wing, alleging in particular that during this period he was not able to have visits or contact with his family by telephone or correspondence and that he was only allowed to leave his cell in order to go to the toilet, have a bath or pick up his food tray. He subsequently complained that his letter addressed to the Ombudsman dated 6 October 2003 was delivered late, after having been sent by the prison director to the Director General of the Ministry of Justice.
28.  According to the Ombudsman’s report of 21 November 2003 the applicant had been confined to a cell in the security wing for 47 days. Having been contacted by the Ombudsman, the prison authorities stated that the applicant had been put in solitary confinement for his own protection given the possibility of retaliation by other prisoners due to the restrictive measures imposed on them as a result of the applicant’s failure to return from home leave. The prison authorities confirmed that the applicant was not permitted any visits, telephone conversations or letters and that moreover, he was not allowed to exit his cell except in order to wash himself, to go to the toilet and to get his food. It was further noted that although the Senior Prison Inspector had given instructions on 31 October 2003 that the applicant be returned to normal detention, the applicant was kept confined to his cell until 7 November 2003 as the instructions had not been registered in the records of the wing but had merely been noted on a piece of paper which had been misplaced.
29.  As regards the applicant’s letter to the Ombudsman dated 6 October 2003, the report noted that a copy of that letter, as well as copies of three other letters addressed to recipients other than the prison authorities, had been sent by the prison director to the Director General of the Ministry of Justice in order to seek instructions as to whether the particular letters should be sent to the intended recipients. The Ombudsman received the letter addressed to her on 5 November 2003.
30.  The Ombudsman in her report observed that it did not appear from the file that the confinement of the applicant had been of a disciplinary nature. She also noted that had the applicant’s confinement been a preventive measure or a measure for the protection of the applicant, as claimed by the prison authorities, then under regulation 151(5) of the Prison (General) Regulations 1997 (“Prison Regulations” – see further “Relevant domestic law and practice”, below) the written approval of the prison director would have been required. No such approval had been given. The Ombudsman therefore considered that the applicant’s confinement was a punitive measure.
31.  Moreover, the Ombudsman was not convinced that the denial of the applicant’s right to receive visits, correspondence and telephone contact, for example with his eight year old son, had aimed to protect the applicant from his fellow inmates. She further observed the following:
“It is noted that although in theory the total seclusion of a person in combination with his total social isolation is not acceptable, in practice the European Court of Human Rights and the European Commission have tolerated this type of total confinement in exceptional circumstances. However, this was done in cases concerning particularly dangerous terrorists who had been detained pending their trial and who had been allowed to go into the prison yard at some specific time in the day.”
32.  The Ombudsman concluded that the applicant’s confinement for a total period of 47 days with no right to exit his cell for one hour a day as provided for in the Prison Regulations, in combination with the denial of the applicant’s right to have contact with family and friends, was in breach of the Prison Regulations and constituted a violation of the applicant’s rights under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention.
33.  As regards the applicant’s complaint concerning the monitoring of the letter he sent to her, the Ombudsman emphasised the importance of allowing prisoners direct and uninhibited access to her office. In this connection she referred, inter alia, to the European Prison Rules and a report by the Council of Europe’s Committee for the prevention of torture (see further “International materials”, below), as well as the case of Silver and others v. the United Kingdom, (no. 5947/72; 6205/73; 7052/75; 7061/75; 7107/75; 7113/75; 7136/75, Commission’s report of 11 October 1980, Decisions and Reports (DR) 9, p. 56).
34.  On 1 January 2004 the applicant submitted an additional complaint to the Ombudsman against the prison authorities. He complained that the prison authorities had, on 20 December 2003, refused to allow him to give his father, who had visited him in prison, a letter addressed to the Ombudsman requesting her to send him copies of past correspondence between them. The applicant claimed that he did not want the contents of his letters to the Ombudsman to be monitored by the prison personnel and that for this reason he had decided to send the letter through his father. He had complained on 30 December 2003 to the prison director.
35.  The Ombudsman, in a report dated 15 March 2004, repeated that prisoners should be allowed unrestricted access to her office. She found that there had been unjustified difficulties and unnecessary obstacles in the direct and unhampered communication of the applicant with her office that had negatively affected the exercise of his rights. She noted that on 3 February 2004, at a meeting held in the Ministry of Justice, it was decided that a designated letter box would be placed in the central prisons to allow prisoners, freely and without procedural or substantive restrictions, to submit complaints to the Ombudsman concerning their conditions of detention.
36.  By letter of 22 May 2004 the applicant informed the Court that in May 2004, on the basis of a recommendation by the Attorney-General of Cyprus, fifty-four prisoners were granted an official pardon by the President and were consequently released. The applicant was not among the fifty-four.